Until recently, the Sefer Yetzira (SY) commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind was considered by... more Until recently, the Sefer Yetzira (SY) commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind was considered by scholars as the earliest Kabbalistic treatise of known authorship, and as the main vestige of the Kabbalistic traditions of Isaac, an author recognized by Kabbalists and scholars alike as a founding figure of Kabbalistic literature and thought. Consequently, scholars accepted Gershom Scholem’s view that the commentary was indeed composed by Isaac the Blind and thus was written in the first third of the thirteenth century. Accordingly, it was believed to have been known to Kabbalists active in Isaac’s days and shortly after his passing, Kabbalists who valued this commentary and were influenced by its contents. In a recent article, Avishai Bar-Asher argued that the attribution of this commentary to Isaac the Blind is erroneous and must be completely rejected by scholars, since this commentary is, in fact, a much later work. In addition, Bar-Asher claimed that the Catalan and Castilian Kabbalists younger than Isaac, neither valued this SY commentary nor used its contents in their writings. This he explains as a consequence of one or more of the following scenarios: (1) the commentary was not yet extant in their days; (2) the commentary was already extant in their days but they were not familiar with it; (3) the Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary but did not value it much; (4) the Kabbalists disagreed with the commentary’s contents and criticized it; (5) the Kabbalists did not view this commentary as Isaac’s work. In the article the author presents and analyses evidence from which a different picture emerges: the commentary was in fact known to Kabbalists shortly after its composition, regarding which we have no substantiated reason to date it later than Isaac’s death. Throughout the thirteenth century Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary, and it is in fact the only SY commentary known to us from this century that was in itself a subject of Kabbalistic commentaries. From this we learn that this commentary enjoyed high and unique status among Kabbalists in this period. Finally, all the reliable extant manuscripts of the commentary include clear attributions to Isaac the Blind. The article is divided into three parts: First, the attribution of the commentary to Isaac the Blind in the extant manuscripts is discussed, showing that the evidence corroborates the credibility of this attribution. In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the treatise commonly referred to as Isaac of Acre’s SY commentary, which she has recently shown to be a commentary by Isaac of Acre on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. In addition to what can be inferred on the status of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind from the fact that it was studied by a central Kabbalist, probably at the end of the thirteenth century, further evidence is uncovered, hitherto neglected in Isaac of Acre’s commentary, which testifies to the existence of additional Kabbalistic commentaries on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. These were probably composed during the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. Thus, we learn that during this period at least two (and perhaps – three) kabbalistic commentaries were composed on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. This shows that the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind enjoyed a solid and recognized status among Kabbalists in the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. This also shows that the commentary was already extant in this period. In the last part of the article, I present evidence showing that the commentary was extant even earlier, most probably – at the latest – during Isaac the Blind’s last years. Thus, it is shown that Nachmanides knew the commentary in the 1240s–50s; that Azriel of Girona used the commentary in his own SY commentary; and that Ezra of Girona, who passed away shortly after Isaac the Blind, was also familiar with this commentary. Finally, it is shown that Jacob ben Sheshet was also familiar with the commentary, since he refers to a passage known to us from the commentary while specifically attributing it to Isaac the Blind. Therefore, given everything known to us at this point, the author sees no reason to doubt the early dating of the commentary’s composition, its central status among thirteenth century Kabbalists, or the reliability of its attribution to Isaac the Blind.
Isaac of Acre’s Commentary on the Sefer Yetzira Commentary Attributed to Isaac the Blind, 2022
From among the treatises attributed to the Kabbalist Isaac of Acre (RIdA), this article focuses o... more From among the treatises attributed to the Kabbalist Isaac of Acre (RIdA), this article focuses on a short treatise of his which Gershom Scholem discovered in the sixteenth century anthology Avnei Zikkaron. Scholem designated this treatise as a commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (SY) and published it as such, and since then scholars have not questioned his designation. In the article, the author shows that the treatise in question is in fact a commentary on yet another commentary, namely the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. Consequently, it is not a direct commentary on SY. Scholem noted in his article that RIdA’s commentary includes many citations from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind, and remarked that RIdA failed to comprehend their contents. In a different vein, Avishai Bar-Asher argued that the references to the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are merely partial citations presented by RIdA in order to express his objection to their contents. Contrary to these views, the author shows that RIdA’s commentary relates only to words from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and explains their meaning, showing full understanding and acceptance of their contents and demonstrating great esteem for its author. Following a succinct presentation of the evidence corroborating this claim, the bulk of the article is dedicated to a detailed description of the various hermeneutical treatments RIdA utilizes in his work on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. The examples are divided into those related to terminology, to syntax and to contents. Based on this hermeneutical survey and investigation the author shows that RIdA fully accepted the authority of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and accurately understood its contents. In addition, several difficult points in the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are elucidated. The article includes a critical edition of RIdA’s commentary, aligned with the relevant passages from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind.
Following Boaz Huss’s coinage of an ‘Idea of the Zohar’, I focus in this paper on the ‘Idea of th... more Following Boaz Huss’s coinage of an ‘Idea of the Zohar’, I focus in this paper on the ‘Idea of the Zohar’ held by the Kabbalistic Christian Guillaume Postel (1510–1581). Postel regarded the Zohar as an ultimate expression of his entire theological and messianic thought, and therefore he produced two Latin annotated translations of this treatise. Relying on a close analysis of the Incipit he attached to the earlier translation completed in early 1554 (BL ms. Slaone 1410, fol. 1r), I sketch Postel’s unique concepts regarding the Zohar, both as a text and as a divine essence, showing how his description of the Zohar’s provenance and circulation sheds light on his particular ‘Idea of the Zohar’.
The article focuses on Guillaume Postel’s Latin Zohar Commentary (1553), with the aim of uncoveri... more The article focuses on Guillaume Postel’s Latin Zohar Commentary (1553), with the aim of uncovering a hitherto unknown influence of the medieval ʿIyyun Corpus on Postel’s Kabbalistic thought. Following a prefatory methodological exposition it is demonstrated that in addition to the more common Kabbalistic doctrines, such as those of the Zohar and other central theosophical-Kabbalistic treatises, Postel was also influenced by a different trend of Kabbalah, namely, the anonymous thirteenth-century mystical corpus originating in Languedoc, designated in scholarship as the ʿIyyun Writings. A reliable analysis of Kabbalistic Christian writings requires acquaintance with the writers’ sources, especially given the extent and divergence of medieval Kabbalistic literature. Therefore, we cannot make do with locating overt citations or references to known Kabbalistic treatises found in these writings, but also aim at uncovering covert Kabbalistic traditions which influenced them, as in the cas...
Gershom Scholem and his followers described the theme of Gilgul (metempsychosis) as a characteris... more Gershom Scholem and his followers described the theme of Gilgul (metempsychosis) as a characteristic of early Kabbalistic literature, and identified it with the secret of ʿIbbur (impregnation), which is alluded to by various Kabbalists in that period. Refuting Scholem’s assumption, Moshe Idel argued that ʿIbbur was erroneously understood by scholars as referring to metempsychosis; in fact, he claims, no existing evidence corroborates Scholem’s hypothesis that early Kabbalists, active earlier or independently from Nachmanides, discussed the concept of metempsychosis. In light of this debate, I evoke here early Kabbalistic traditions that describe a certain sefirotic type of metempsychosis; I thereby show that such ideas were indeed extant among Kabbalists in that period. In the first part of the article, I discuss early traditions describing this specific type of metempsychosis: two versions of a Provençal tradition, probably contemporaneous with Isaac the Blind; a tradition attributed to the Kabbalist Ben Belimah; and a short tradition attributed to Yehudah bar Yakkar. In the second part of the article, I show that these early traditions and similar ones still circulated in the early fourteenth century, as can be inferred from the writings of Joseph Ashkenazi, from Sefer HaTemunah, and from the Zohar.
Major parts of thirteenth-century Sefirotic literature show evident
enhancement and development o... more Major parts of thirteenth-century Sefirotic literature show evident enhancement and development of the female aspect of the Godhead, an earlier Jewish theme known to us from rabbinic literature. Thus, as part of the developing Sefirotic discourse in this period, rabbinic notions such as God’s presence (Shekhina), Wisdom (Hokhma), mother of Israel, and the Torah crystallized as female Sefirot. A question arises, therefore, as to the reasons for this growing Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Godhead, in this specific historical context. Some twenty years ago, Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer suggested, based on an earlier remark made by Rafael Patai, that this Jewish phenomenon was a reaction to the surge in Marian devotion in the twelfth century. This suggestion aroused scholarly debates, including two main points of critique: first, that this notion is of Jewish provenance and therefore is in no need of external explications, and second, that the sexual profile of these two figures, Mary and the Shekhina, is clearly opposed in nature. In the current study and elsewhere, I propose regarding these two phenomena – the enhancement of Christian Marian devotion and the Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Sefirotic Godhead, as two independent expressions of a wider, much richer, cultural trend. As has been shown by medievalists at length, the High Middle Ages saw a dramatic surge in the extent of women’s actual and symbolic presence in public spheres, religious and secular alike. In this article I focus on Christian religious and devout women, and show how these far-reaching changes in these women’s presence in public spheres was experienced at the time, whether positively or negatively, in particular by Christian religious men. Alongside the wellknown expansion in Marian devotion in the Christian world, these historical vicissitudes are related to the evolution of flexible gender approaches to sainthood, to holiness and to the figure of Jesus Christ, all increasingly perceived as effeminate or womanish in this period. I propose viewing the growing preoccupation of thirteenth-century Jewish men with earlier Jewish concepts regarding female aspects of the Godhead, the latter now perceived Sefirotically, as part of this cultural and theological discourse.
The article focuses on the autograph manuscript of Guillaume Postel's first Latin translation and... more The article focuses on the autograph manuscript of Guillaume Postel's first Latin translation and commentary of the Book of Zohar (completed by 1554). Based on several dates specified in the manuscript as well as on various paleographical hints, the order and manner in which this comprehensive and fascinating work was composed are reconstructed and presented. Since the work was composed in the course of almost seven years, in which Postel journeyed and sojourned in different cities in Europe and in the Orient, and in which he underwent significant ideological and mystical vicissitudes, the new information regarding dates and places of composition of different parts of the translation, not only sheds light on Postel's biography but also contributes to our understanding of the commented translation itself.
One of the earliest Kabbalistic centers known to us was active in the 13th century in the Catalan... more One of the earliest Kabbalistic centers known to us was active in the 13th century in the Catalan town of Girona, in which such renowned kabbalists as Ezra, Azriel, Jacob b. Sheshet and Nachmanides lived and composed their writings. In the past two decades, Moshe Idel's assertion, according to which Nachmanidean Kabbalah is not dependent upon Gironese sources and that his Sefirotic notions are separate and independent of those of his townsmen. In contradistinction, the present paper points to six Kabbalistic themes and traits characteristic to the writings of Nachmanides as well as to those of his older townsman Azriel of Girona. Through close comparison, it is shown that these two corpora share significant points of similarity which were not hitherto discussed in scholarship. Consequently, it is proposed to see Nachmanidean Kabbalah as a corpus genealogically related, among others, to parts of the Kabbalistic corpus composed in Girona by other Kabbalists, first and foremost – by Azriel.
Following Boaz Huss's coinage of an 'Idea of the Zohar' , I focus in this paper on the 'Idea of t... more Following Boaz Huss's coinage of an 'Idea of the Zohar' , I focus in this paper on the 'Idea of the Zohar' held by the Kabbalistic Christian Guillaume Postel (1510-1581). Pos-tel regarded the Zohar as an ultimate expression of his entire theological and messianic thought, and therefore he produced two Latin annotated translations of this treatise. Relying on a close analysis of the Incipit he attached to the earlier translation completed in early 1554 (BL ms. Slaone 1410, fol. 1r), I sketch Postel's unique concepts regarding the Zohar, both as a text and as a divine essence, showing how his description of the Zohar's provenance and circulation sheds light on his particular 'Idea of the Zohar' .
The extensive millenaristic-Kabbalistic corpus composed by the french Orientalist and Mystic Guil... more The extensive millenaristic-Kabbalistic corpus composed by the french Orientalist and Mystic Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) has been at the heart of many studies which have illuminated various facets of Postel's thought and have described the main themes and topics with which he was preoccupied. However, these studies did not attempt to delineate Postel's Theological thought as a whole, nor did they offer close readings of large units of his texts. In this article, I argue that these characteristics of the scholarship on Postel can be attributed to his notorious reputation as an unstable person from which it ensues that his thought and writings cannot be considered completely coherent or comprehensible. This reputation, formulated in the common phrase 'Le docte et fol Postel', all in all, still influences the way his readers and researchers approach his writings. Contrary to this attitude towards Postel's writing, the basic assumption of this study is that Postel's thought can be understood in its entirety and an overarching theory of its structure, main principles and tenets is presented. As is shown, the extreme divergence, heterogeneity and apparent associativity characteristic of Postel's writing can, in fact, be employed as a path for reconstructing the main tenets of his thought, and what is more important – for revealing one simple recurrent theological structure on the basis of which Postel repeatedly articulates his ideas. In the article, this basic structure is described followed by a presentation of eight disparate thematic systems prevalent in Postel's writings, all of which are shown to be constructed upon this basic common structure. In conclusion, a textual example, taken from Postel's Zohar commentary, is analyzed thoroughly, thereby demonstrating how an appreciation of this theological structure allows for a coherent understanding of his writing, both in its details and as a whole.
In 1549, Guillaume Postel departed from Venice and headed East on a journey whose main destinatio... more In 1549, Guillaume Postel departed from Venice and headed East on a journey whose main destination was Palestine and Jerusalem 1. This Journey, which was motivated by both the mystical and didactic allure of Jerusalem, took place in the course of a six-year period during which Postel delved intensely into the study, translation and interpretation of the Book of Zohar 2. A few years prior to Postel's journey, a Jewish kabbalist named Abraham Ha'Levi lived in Jerusalem. Ha'Levi was aware of the existence of Christian scholars interested in kabbalistic literature, and expressed his attitude toward this phenomenon in his epistles and monographs (Idel 2003; idem 2004) 3 .These two writers – Postel and Ha'Levi – can serve as good examples of the dialectics and the intellectual dynamics from which the image of the real and of the symbolic Jerusalem in the first half of the 16 th century can be envisaged. At the core of this paper stands Jerusalem in its symbolic and real dimensions. In the following pages we shall endeavour to examine the way in which the Zohar might have engendered the journey to Jerusalem for a Christian kabbalist. Alongside this examination, we shall offer a parallel enquiry into the reaction of a Jewish Jerusalemite Kabbalist to the increasing interest exhibited by Christian Scholars in Jewish esoteric lore. In the context of this study, Jerusalem is considered both as the geographical abode of an important kabbalistic group which expressly chose to live in this city, as well as the yearned for destination of a Christian kabbalist on a journey of a mystical character. As is well known, Postel translated and commented on a number of Hebrew and Aramaic Rabbinic and Kabbalistic texts, in addition to the treatises he himself composed (Kuntz 1981 a). However, it is his preoccupation specifically with the Zohar, precisely at the time of his journey to Jerusalem, which is significant to our investigations. As we shall see, the Land of Israel, both in its real and symbolic essence, is a major pivot in Kabbalistic and especially Zoharic literature, to the extent that many Renaissance Jewish Kabbalists eventually immigrated to Palestine out of their devotion to these texts. Bracha Zack noted that:
Until recently, the Sefer Yetzira (SY) commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind was considered by... more Until recently, the Sefer Yetzira (SY) commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind was considered by scholars as the earliest Kabbalistic treatise of known authorship, and as the main vestige of the Kabbalistic traditions of Isaac, an author recognized by Kabbalists and scholars alike as a founding figure of Kabbalistic literature and thought. Consequently, scholars accepted Gershom Scholem’s view that the commentary was indeed composed by Isaac the Blind and thus was written in the first third of the thirteenth century. Accordingly, it was believed to have been known to Kabbalists active in Isaac’s days and shortly after his passing, Kabbalists who valued this commentary and were influenced by its contents. In a recent article, Avishai Bar-Asher argued that the attribution of this commentary to Isaac the Blind is erroneous and must be completely rejected by scholars, since this commentary is, in fact, a much later work. In addition, Bar-Asher claimed that the Catalan and Castilian Kabbalists younger than Isaac, neither valued this SY commentary nor used its contents in their writings. This he explains as a consequence of one or more of the following scenarios: (1) the commentary was not yet extant in their days; (2) the commentary was already extant in their days but they were not familiar with it; (3) the Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary but did not value it much; (4) the Kabbalists disagreed with the commentary’s contents and criticized it; (5) the Kabbalists did not view this commentary as Isaac’s work. In the article the author presents and analyses evidence from which a different picture emerges: the commentary was in fact known to Kabbalists shortly after its composition, regarding which we have no substantiated reason to date it later than Isaac’s death. Throughout the thirteenth century Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary, and it is in fact the only SY commentary known to us from this century that was in itself a subject of Kabbalistic commentaries. From this we learn that this commentary enjoyed high and unique status among Kabbalists in this period. Finally, all the reliable extant manuscripts of the commentary include clear attributions to Isaac the Blind. The article is divided into three parts: First, the attribution of the commentary to Isaac the Blind in the extant manuscripts is discussed, showing that the evidence corroborates the credibility of this attribution. In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the treatise commonly referred to as Isaac of Acre’s SY commentary, which she has recently shown to be a commentary by Isaac of Acre on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. In addition to what can be inferred on the status of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind from the fact that it was studied by a central Kabbalist, probably at the end of the thirteenth century, further evidence is uncovered, hitherto neglected in Isaac of Acre’s commentary, which testifies to the existence of additional Kabbalistic commentaries on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. These were probably composed during the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. Thus, we learn that during this period at least two (and perhaps – three) kabbalistic commentaries were composed on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. This shows that the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind enjoyed a solid and recognized status among Kabbalists in the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. This also shows that the commentary was already extant in this period. In the last part of the article, I present evidence showing that the commentary was extant even earlier, most probably – at the latest – during Isaac the Blind’s last years. Thus, it is shown that Nachmanides knew the commentary in the 1240s–50s; that Azriel of Girona used the commentary in his own SY commentary; and that Ezra of Girona, who passed away shortly after Isaac the Blind, was also familiar with this commentary. Finally, it is shown that Jacob ben Sheshet was also familiar with the commentary, since he refers to a passage known to us from the commentary while specifically attributing it to Isaac the Blind. Therefore, given everything known to us at this point, the author sees no reason to doubt the early dating of the commentary’s composition, its central status among thirteenth century Kabbalists, or the reliability of its attribution to Isaac the Blind.
Isaac of Acre’s Commentary on the Sefer Yetzira Commentary Attributed to Isaac the Blind, 2022
From among the treatises attributed to the Kabbalist Isaac of Acre (RIdA), this article focuses o... more From among the treatises attributed to the Kabbalist Isaac of Acre (RIdA), this article focuses on a short treatise of his which Gershom Scholem discovered in the sixteenth century anthology Avnei Zikkaron. Scholem designated this treatise as a commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (SY) and published it as such, and since then scholars have not questioned his designation. In the article, the author shows that the treatise in question is in fact a commentary on yet another commentary, namely the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. Consequently, it is not a direct commentary on SY. Scholem noted in his article that RIdA’s commentary includes many citations from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind, and remarked that RIdA failed to comprehend their contents. In a different vein, Avishai Bar-Asher argued that the references to the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are merely partial citations presented by RIdA in order to express his objection to their contents. Contrary to these views, the author shows that RIdA’s commentary relates only to words from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and explains their meaning, showing full understanding and acceptance of their contents and demonstrating great esteem for its author. Following a succinct presentation of the evidence corroborating this claim, the bulk of the article is dedicated to a detailed description of the various hermeneutical treatments RIdA utilizes in his work on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. The examples are divided into those related to terminology, to syntax and to contents. Based on this hermeneutical survey and investigation the author shows that RIdA fully accepted the authority of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and accurately understood its contents. In addition, several difficult points in the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are elucidated. The article includes a critical edition of RIdA’s commentary, aligned with the relevant passages from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind.
Following Boaz Huss’s coinage of an ‘Idea of the Zohar’, I focus in this paper on the ‘Idea of th... more Following Boaz Huss’s coinage of an ‘Idea of the Zohar’, I focus in this paper on the ‘Idea of the Zohar’ held by the Kabbalistic Christian Guillaume Postel (1510–1581). Postel regarded the Zohar as an ultimate expression of his entire theological and messianic thought, and therefore he produced two Latin annotated translations of this treatise. Relying on a close analysis of the Incipit he attached to the earlier translation completed in early 1554 (BL ms. Slaone 1410, fol. 1r), I sketch Postel’s unique concepts regarding the Zohar, both as a text and as a divine essence, showing how his description of the Zohar’s provenance and circulation sheds light on his particular ‘Idea of the Zohar’.
The article focuses on Guillaume Postel’s Latin Zohar Commentary (1553), with the aim of uncoveri... more The article focuses on Guillaume Postel’s Latin Zohar Commentary (1553), with the aim of uncovering a hitherto unknown influence of the medieval ʿIyyun Corpus on Postel’s Kabbalistic thought. Following a prefatory methodological exposition it is demonstrated that in addition to the more common Kabbalistic doctrines, such as those of the Zohar and other central theosophical-Kabbalistic treatises, Postel was also influenced by a different trend of Kabbalah, namely, the anonymous thirteenth-century mystical corpus originating in Languedoc, designated in scholarship as the ʿIyyun Writings. A reliable analysis of Kabbalistic Christian writings requires acquaintance with the writers’ sources, especially given the extent and divergence of medieval Kabbalistic literature. Therefore, we cannot make do with locating overt citations or references to known Kabbalistic treatises found in these writings, but also aim at uncovering covert Kabbalistic traditions which influenced them, as in the cas...
Gershom Scholem and his followers described the theme of Gilgul (metempsychosis) as a characteris... more Gershom Scholem and his followers described the theme of Gilgul (metempsychosis) as a characteristic of early Kabbalistic literature, and identified it with the secret of ʿIbbur (impregnation), which is alluded to by various Kabbalists in that period. Refuting Scholem’s assumption, Moshe Idel argued that ʿIbbur was erroneously understood by scholars as referring to metempsychosis; in fact, he claims, no existing evidence corroborates Scholem’s hypothesis that early Kabbalists, active earlier or independently from Nachmanides, discussed the concept of metempsychosis. In light of this debate, I evoke here early Kabbalistic traditions that describe a certain sefirotic type of metempsychosis; I thereby show that such ideas were indeed extant among Kabbalists in that period. In the first part of the article, I discuss early traditions describing this specific type of metempsychosis: two versions of a Provençal tradition, probably contemporaneous with Isaac the Blind; a tradition attributed to the Kabbalist Ben Belimah; and a short tradition attributed to Yehudah bar Yakkar. In the second part of the article, I show that these early traditions and similar ones still circulated in the early fourteenth century, as can be inferred from the writings of Joseph Ashkenazi, from Sefer HaTemunah, and from the Zohar.
Major parts of thirteenth-century Sefirotic literature show evident
enhancement and development o... more Major parts of thirteenth-century Sefirotic literature show evident enhancement and development of the female aspect of the Godhead, an earlier Jewish theme known to us from rabbinic literature. Thus, as part of the developing Sefirotic discourse in this period, rabbinic notions such as God’s presence (Shekhina), Wisdom (Hokhma), mother of Israel, and the Torah crystallized as female Sefirot. A question arises, therefore, as to the reasons for this growing Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Godhead, in this specific historical context. Some twenty years ago, Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer suggested, based on an earlier remark made by Rafael Patai, that this Jewish phenomenon was a reaction to the surge in Marian devotion in the twelfth century. This suggestion aroused scholarly debates, including two main points of critique: first, that this notion is of Jewish provenance and therefore is in no need of external explications, and second, that the sexual profile of these two figures, Mary and the Shekhina, is clearly opposed in nature. In the current study and elsewhere, I propose regarding these two phenomena – the enhancement of Christian Marian devotion and the Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Sefirotic Godhead, as two independent expressions of a wider, much richer, cultural trend. As has been shown by medievalists at length, the High Middle Ages saw a dramatic surge in the extent of women’s actual and symbolic presence in public spheres, religious and secular alike. In this article I focus on Christian religious and devout women, and show how these far-reaching changes in these women’s presence in public spheres was experienced at the time, whether positively or negatively, in particular by Christian religious men. Alongside the wellknown expansion in Marian devotion in the Christian world, these historical vicissitudes are related to the evolution of flexible gender approaches to sainthood, to holiness and to the figure of Jesus Christ, all increasingly perceived as effeminate or womanish in this period. I propose viewing the growing preoccupation of thirteenth-century Jewish men with earlier Jewish concepts regarding female aspects of the Godhead, the latter now perceived Sefirotically, as part of this cultural and theological discourse.
The article focuses on the autograph manuscript of Guillaume Postel's first Latin translation and... more The article focuses on the autograph manuscript of Guillaume Postel's first Latin translation and commentary of the Book of Zohar (completed by 1554). Based on several dates specified in the manuscript as well as on various paleographical hints, the order and manner in which this comprehensive and fascinating work was composed are reconstructed and presented. Since the work was composed in the course of almost seven years, in which Postel journeyed and sojourned in different cities in Europe and in the Orient, and in which he underwent significant ideological and mystical vicissitudes, the new information regarding dates and places of composition of different parts of the translation, not only sheds light on Postel's biography but also contributes to our understanding of the commented translation itself.
One of the earliest Kabbalistic centers known to us was active in the 13th century in the Catalan... more One of the earliest Kabbalistic centers known to us was active in the 13th century in the Catalan town of Girona, in which such renowned kabbalists as Ezra, Azriel, Jacob b. Sheshet and Nachmanides lived and composed their writings. In the past two decades, Moshe Idel's assertion, according to which Nachmanidean Kabbalah is not dependent upon Gironese sources and that his Sefirotic notions are separate and independent of those of his townsmen. In contradistinction, the present paper points to six Kabbalistic themes and traits characteristic to the writings of Nachmanides as well as to those of his older townsman Azriel of Girona. Through close comparison, it is shown that these two corpora share significant points of similarity which were not hitherto discussed in scholarship. Consequently, it is proposed to see Nachmanidean Kabbalah as a corpus genealogically related, among others, to parts of the Kabbalistic corpus composed in Girona by other Kabbalists, first and foremost – by Azriel.
Following Boaz Huss's coinage of an 'Idea of the Zohar' , I focus in this paper on the 'Idea of t... more Following Boaz Huss's coinage of an 'Idea of the Zohar' , I focus in this paper on the 'Idea of the Zohar' held by the Kabbalistic Christian Guillaume Postel (1510-1581). Pos-tel regarded the Zohar as an ultimate expression of his entire theological and messianic thought, and therefore he produced two Latin annotated translations of this treatise. Relying on a close analysis of the Incipit he attached to the earlier translation completed in early 1554 (BL ms. Slaone 1410, fol. 1r), I sketch Postel's unique concepts regarding the Zohar, both as a text and as a divine essence, showing how his description of the Zohar's provenance and circulation sheds light on his particular 'Idea of the Zohar' .
The extensive millenaristic-Kabbalistic corpus composed by the french Orientalist and Mystic Guil... more The extensive millenaristic-Kabbalistic corpus composed by the french Orientalist and Mystic Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) has been at the heart of many studies which have illuminated various facets of Postel's thought and have described the main themes and topics with which he was preoccupied. However, these studies did not attempt to delineate Postel's Theological thought as a whole, nor did they offer close readings of large units of his texts. In this article, I argue that these characteristics of the scholarship on Postel can be attributed to his notorious reputation as an unstable person from which it ensues that his thought and writings cannot be considered completely coherent or comprehensible. This reputation, formulated in the common phrase 'Le docte et fol Postel', all in all, still influences the way his readers and researchers approach his writings. Contrary to this attitude towards Postel's writing, the basic assumption of this study is that Postel's thought can be understood in its entirety and an overarching theory of its structure, main principles and tenets is presented. As is shown, the extreme divergence, heterogeneity and apparent associativity characteristic of Postel's writing can, in fact, be employed as a path for reconstructing the main tenets of his thought, and what is more important – for revealing one simple recurrent theological structure on the basis of which Postel repeatedly articulates his ideas. In the article, this basic structure is described followed by a presentation of eight disparate thematic systems prevalent in Postel's writings, all of which are shown to be constructed upon this basic common structure. In conclusion, a textual example, taken from Postel's Zohar commentary, is analyzed thoroughly, thereby demonstrating how an appreciation of this theological structure allows for a coherent understanding of his writing, both in its details and as a whole.
In 1549, Guillaume Postel departed from Venice and headed East on a journey whose main destinatio... more In 1549, Guillaume Postel departed from Venice and headed East on a journey whose main destination was Palestine and Jerusalem 1. This Journey, which was motivated by both the mystical and didactic allure of Jerusalem, took place in the course of a six-year period during which Postel delved intensely into the study, translation and interpretation of the Book of Zohar 2. A few years prior to Postel's journey, a Jewish kabbalist named Abraham Ha'Levi lived in Jerusalem. Ha'Levi was aware of the existence of Christian scholars interested in kabbalistic literature, and expressed his attitude toward this phenomenon in his epistles and monographs (Idel 2003; idem 2004) 3 .These two writers – Postel and Ha'Levi – can serve as good examples of the dialectics and the intellectual dynamics from which the image of the real and of the symbolic Jerusalem in the first half of the 16 th century can be envisaged. At the core of this paper stands Jerusalem in its symbolic and real dimensions. In the following pages we shall endeavour to examine the way in which the Zohar might have engendered the journey to Jerusalem for a Christian kabbalist. Alongside this examination, we shall offer a parallel enquiry into the reaction of a Jewish Jerusalemite Kabbalist to the increasing interest exhibited by Christian Scholars in Jewish esoteric lore. In the context of this study, Jerusalem is considered both as the geographical abode of an important kabbalistic group which expressly chose to live in this city, as well as the yearned for destination of a Christian kabbalist on a journey of a mystical character. As is well known, Postel translated and commented on a number of Hebrew and Aramaic Rabbinic and Kabbalistic texts, in addition to the treatises he himself composed (Kuntz 1981 a). However, it is his preoccupation specifically with the Zohar, precisely at the time of his journey to Jerusalem, which is significant to our investigations. As we shall see, the Land of Israel, both in its real and symbolic essence, is a major pivot in Kabbalistic and especially Zoharic literature, to the extent that many Renaissance Jewish Kabbalists eventually immigrated to Palestine out of their devotion to these texts. Bracha Zack noted that:
Uploads
Papers by Judith Weiss
In the article the author presents and analyses evidence from which a different picture emerges: the commentary was in fact known to Kabbalists shortly after its composition, regarding which we have no substantiated reason to date it later than Isaac’s death.
Throughout the thirteenth century Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary, and it is in fact the only SY commentary known to us from this century that was in itself a subject of Kabbalistic commentaries. From this we learn that this commentary enjoyed high and unique status among Kabbalists in this period. Finally, all the reliable extant manuscripts of the commentary include clear attributions to Isaac the Blind.
The article is divided into three parts: First, the attribution of the commentary to Isaac the Blind in the extant manuscripts is discussed, showing that the evidence corroborates the credibility of this attribution.
In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the treatise commonly referred to as Isaac of Acre’s SY commentary, which she has recently shown to be a commentary by Isaac of Acre on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. In addition to what can be inferred on the status of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind from the fact that it was studied by a central Kabbalist, probably at the end of the thirteenth century, further evidence is uncovered, hitherto neglected in Isaac of Acre’s commentary, which testifies to the existence of additional Kabbalistic commentaries on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. These were probably composed during the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. Thus, we learn that during this period at least two (and perhaps – three) kabbalistic commentaries were composed on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. This
shows that the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind enjoyed a solid and recognized status among Kabbalists in the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. This also shows that the commentary was already extant in this period.
In the last part of the article, I present evidence showing that the commentary was extant even earlier, most probably – at the latest – during Isaac the Blind’s last years. Thus, it is shown that Nachmanides knew the commentary in the 1240s–50s; that Azriel of Girona used the commentary in his own SY commentary; and that Ezra of Girona, who passed away shortly after Isaac the Blind, was also familiar with this commentary. Finally, it is shown that Jacob ben Sheshet was also familiar with the commentary, since he refers to a passage known to us from the commentary while specifically attributing it to Isaac the Blind.
Therefore, given everything known to us at this point, the author sees no reason to doubt the early dating of the commentary’s composition, its central status among thirteenth century Kabbalists, or the reliability of its attribution to Isaac the Blind.
Following a succinct presentation of the evidence corroborating this claim, the bulk of the article is dedicated to a detailed description of the various hermeneutical treatments RIdA utilizes in his work on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. The examples are divided into those related to terminology, to syntax and to contents. Based on this hermeneutical survey and investigation the author shows that RIdA fully accepted the authority of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and accurately understood its contents. In addition, several difficult points in the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are elucidated. The article includes a critical edition of RIdA’s commentary, aligned with the relevant passages from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind.
enhancement and development of the female aspect of the Godhead, an
earlier Jewish theme known to us from rabbinic literature. Thus, as part of the developing Sefirotic discourse in this period, rabbinic notions such as God’s presence (Shekhina), Wisdom (Hokhma), mother of Israel, and the Torah crystallized as female Sefirot. A question arises, therefore, as to the reasons for this growing Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Godhead, in this specific historical context. Some twenty years ago, Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer suggested, based on an earlier remark made by Rafael Patai, that this Jewish phenomenon was a reaction to the surge in Marian devotion in the twelfth century. This suggestion aroused scholarly debates, including two main points of critique: first, that this notion is of Jewish provenance and therefore is in no need of external explications, and second, that the sexual profile of these two figures, Mary and the Shekhina, is clearly opposed in nature. In the current study and elsewhere, I propose regarding these two phenomena – the enhancement of Christian Marian devotion and the Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Sefirotic Godhead, as two independent expressions of a wider, much richer, cultural trend. As has been shown by medievalists at length, the High Middle Ages saw a dramatic surge in the extent of women’s actual and symbolic presence in public spheres, religious and secular alike. In this article I focus on Christian religious and devout women, and show how these far-reaching changes in these women’s presence in public spheres was experienced at the time, whether positively or negatively, in particular by Christian religious men. Alongside the wellknown expansion in Marian devotion in the Christian world, these historical vicissitudes are related to the evolution of flexible gender approaches to sainthood, to holiness and to the figure of Jesus Christ, all increasingly perceived as effeminate or womanish in this period. I propose viewing the growing preoccupation of thirteenth-century Jewish men with earlier Jewish concepts regarding female aspects of the Godhead, the latter now perceived Sefirotically, as part of this cultural and theological discourse.
Books by Judith Weiss
In the article the author presents and analyses evidence from which a different picture emerges: the commentary was in fact known to Kabbalists shortly after its composition, regarding which we have no substantiated reason to date it later than Isaac’s death.
Throughout the thirteenth century Kabbalists were familiar with the commentary, and it is in fact the only SY commentary known to us from this century that was in itself a subject of Kabbalistic commentaries. From this we learn that this commentary enjoyed high and unique status among Kabbalists in this period. Finally, all the reliable extant manuscripts of the commentary include clear attributions to Isaac the Blind.
The article is divided into three parts: First, the attribution of the commentary to Isaac the Blind in the extant manuscripts is discussed, showing that the evidence corroborates the credibility of this attribution.
In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the treatise commonly referred to as Isaac of Acre’s SY commentary, which she has recently shown to be a commentary by Isaac of Acre on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. In addition to what can be inferred on the status of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind from the fact that it was studied by a central Kabbalist, probably at the end of the thirteenth century, further evidence is uncovered, hitherto neglected in Isaac of Acre’s commentary, which testifies to the existence of additional Kabbalistic commentaries on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. These were probably composed during the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. Thus, we learn that during this period at least two (and perhaps – three) kabbalistic commentaries were composed on the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. This
shows that the SY commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind enjoyed a solid and recognized status among Kabbalists in the last third of the thirteenth century at the latest. This also shows that the commentary was already extant in this period.
In the last part of the article, I present evidence showing that the commentary was extant even earlier, most probably – at the latest – during Isaac the Blind’s last years. Thus, it is shown that Nachmanides knew the commentary in the 1240s–50s; that Azriel of Girona used the commentary in his own SY commentary; and that Ezra of Girona, who passed away shortly after Isaac the Blind, was also familiar with this commentary. Finally, it is shown that Jacob ben Sheshet was also familiar with the commentary, since he refers to a passage known to us from the commentary while specifically attributing it to Isaac the Blind.
Therefore, given everything known to us at this point, the author sees no reason to doubt the early dating of the commentary’s composition, its central status among thirteenth century Kabbalists, or the reliability of its attribution to Isaac the Blind.
Following a succinct presentation of the evidence corroborating this claim, the bulk of the article is dedicated to a detailed description of the various hermeneutical treatments RIdA utilizes in his work on the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind. The examples are divided into those related to terminology, to syntax and to contents. Based on this hermeneutical survey and investigation the author shows that RIdA fully accepted the authority of the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind and accurately understood its contents. In addition, several difficult points in the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind are elucidated. The article includes a critical edition of RIdA’s commentary, aligned with the relevant passages from the commentary attributed to Isaac the Blind.
enhancement and development of the female aspect of the Godhead, an
earlier Jewish theme known to us from rabbinic literature. Thus, as part of the developing Sefirotic discourse in this period, rabbinic notions such as God’s presence (Shekhina), Wisdom (Hokhma), mother of Israel, and the Torah crystallized as female Sefirot. A question arises, therefore, as to the reasons for this growing Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Godhead, in this specific historical context. Some twenty years ago, Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer suggested, based on an earlier remark made by Rafael Patai, that this Jewish phenomenon was a reaction to the surge in Marian devotion in the twelfth century. This suggestion aroused scholarly debates, including two main points of critique: first, that this notion is of Jewish provenance and therefore is in no need of external explications, and second, that the sexual profile of these two figures, Mary and the Shekhina, is clearly opposed in nature. In the current study and elsewhere, I propose regarding these two phenomena – the enhancement of Christian Marian devotion and the Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Sefirotic Godhead, as two independent expressions of a wider, much richer, cultural trend. As has been shown by medievalists at length, the High Middle Ages saw a dramatic surge in the extent of women’s actual and symbolic presence in public spheres, religious and secular alike. In this article I focus on Christian religious and devout women, and show how these far-reaching changes in these women’s presence in public spheres was experienced at the time, whether positively or negatively, in particular by Christian religious men. Alongside the wellknown expansion in Marian devotion in the Christian world, these historical vicissitudes are related to the evolution of flexible gender approaches to sainthood, to holiness and to the figure of Jesus Christ, all increasingly perceived as effeminate or womanish in this period. I propose viewing the growing preoccupation of thirteenth-century Jewish men with earlier Jewish concepts regarding female aspects of the Godhead, the latter now perceived Sefirotically, as part of this cultural and theological discourse.